Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:21PM
from the would-you-like-some-goose-with-your-gander? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Further to the previous story on Slashdot where attorney Candice Schwager threw threats to sue a photographer who reported a DMCA violation against her for infringing use of his photography: Candice has now made a DMCA threat of her own against Petapixel, a photography site that reported on her infringement. The kicker? She's sent the DMCA notice an apparent six times not to Petapixel's registrar or their hosting service, but to Godaddy, her own registrar."

And I could say you guys gave us GWB, but then "someone" voted for him... twice.

GWB was actually from Connecticut. He bought the Texas property purely as a political prop, and sold it the second he was out of office. The entire thing was social engineering, designed to make rural and lower class people empathize with him, instead of realizing he's just an embarrassing brat from a New England, old money family.

Citation please? According to Wiki, he bought a new home in the Preston Hollow Area of Dallas, where they settled. Nor was there any mention of their selling their Crawford ranch. There's nothing that I've read anywhere that suggests that they moved 'back' to CT. Similarly, Jeb's still parked in FL.

Actually Bush still owns that ranch. And I think that if he wanted to make his ranch a political topic, he probably would have advertised somewhere that it is designed with immense energy efficiency in mind, which is in stark contrast to Al Gore's house:

Bush actually had it designed that way prior to the 2000 election. I think if he wanted to make a political issue out of that house, either he, or somebody in his campaign, would have pointed that out when Al Gore's primary selling point against Bush was that he is an environmentalist.

Make no mistake -- Texas is indeed full of dumbasses. It's not a unique condition. I have lived here ALL my life and the one thing I have come to understand about dumbasses, is not all of them are malicious assholes. We didn't all vote for Bush (or Perry for that matter) but WAY too many of us did.

I guarantee you Obama is going to leave the country a fuck of a lot better than he got it...whether he's leaving office in 6 months or 4 years and 6 months. Compare this to what Bush inherited from Clinton and what he left Obama with...

Teabaggers had nothing to do with the current economic crisis; they were a response to the crisis, not its cause. It was caused by decades of progressive erosion of banking regulations, and the culprits were a series of Republicans; mainly Senators and regulatory agency appointees put in by Republican presidents, from Reagan onwards. Of course, there were exacerbating additional insults, like the Dubya tax cuts, but the root cause was the evisceration of the regulations put into place to prevent just this s

Since this, like a lot of stories here at/. has gone political, let me weigh in...

President Obama's biggest mistake was trying to rescue the Republicans when they were at an all time low thinking he needed "bipartisanship" to get things passed. He had 3/4ths of the power (lacking only the Supreme Court) and he treated the opposition like they were equal partners. Like my dad always said, leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Instead of using the Tea Party lunacy like a knife twisting it in the belly of the beast, they allowed the Republicans to set not only the tone of the argument but the agenda as if they were still in power.

Anyway, to try and bring this back around, this attorney is just about as batty as any Tea Party Patriot. I guess it is a sign of the times.

That explains why prior to his election and campaign promises, he either voted every for full funding of the Iraq war or did not vote (not the same as coming out against, especially when the votes came closer to the presidential election) and of course voted to extend the PATRIOT act.

I voted third party for the first time last election because I believed his campaign was a lie based on his record. Turns out I was right and made the correct presumption.

failing to take advantage of the brief period of Democratic control of Congress by getting his health care plan passed

It's not his fault; he's naive and inexperienced, and never should have been put up as a nominee

I have a somewhat different view of this. It seems that Obama actually got the health care that he wanted. Sure he paid lip-service to a public option for political reasons, but maybe you don't remember or didn't know that he negotiated away the public option in private meetings with the insurance companies early on [1] [nytimes.com] [2] [wikipedia.org]. There's also the fact that Obama decided to personally scold [washingtonpost.com] Kucinich for trying to stick up for the public option. So I don't really buy the argument that Obama has good intentions but is just too powerless, inexperienced, good-natured, etc. to stand up to the Republicans.

According to Rmoney [thestreet.com], 500000 a month would be successful.

Of course, Obama is a recipreversexclusion - had the economy created half a million jobs last month, they'd be saying it should create 2 million. No matter what he did or was (allegedly) responsible for, it's wrong.

Much like Libya, when before Obama and NATO intervened the Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop. And afterwards, when we were done (in a month, for under a billion dollars, and with none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple) they continued whinging that we never should've intervened in the first place.

And their base believed each of these things in turn, and never saw how ridiculous that is. This exact kind of pattern repeats again, and again, and again. It's been going on for decades. The lack of retrospection and introspection in the Republican party and right-wingers in general never ceases to amaze and/or horrify me. I just don't understand how anyone can listen to someone like Hannity or Glenn Beck and not eventually realize "This person's claims have no relation to what actually happens. This person is never right about anything. I should stop listening to them." Seriously! How the hell does that not happen?

Folks, you're too quick to conclude that Republican voters are stupid. I know quite a few old white guys who are actually smart people, and who vote Republican. What they think does make sense, if the premises they believe are true. They are stuck in the 1950's, stuck on the American ideal of the rugged individualist, and the march of progress. They still believe in getting ahead through hard work, in pushing their children to strike out on their own, and they've seen well-meaning social aid enable dependency. They know it's a hard world, and they believe tough love is the best way to help others. Most of all, they still have a charming sort of optimism that society is largely in control of honest people who will reward others for a job well done, and that the world is a stable place that is not going to get warmer, and there is no call for panic and massive spending over what seems to them fantastical and most unlikely. Much more pressing matters are foreign enemies, which in those days were of course the Commies. In all this, there is none of the lunatic social conservative. These guys remember the times when Democrats were a collection of hippies, artists, impractical dreamers, morons, and slackers sponging off the hard work of our engineers and scientists, and hiding behind the shield of our military. 1969 really reinforced that. Woodstock looks shabby, pointless, and downright irresponsible next to the moon landing. Yes, it was a Democratic president, Kennedy, who proposed it, but the Republicans were quick to see the military potential of space. They simply do not see that today, the Republican party has completely flip flopped on science. Note also that Vietnam was pushed by the Democrats as much as or more than the Republicans. Neither party seemed capable or willing to stop that war. Ford was the president who finally ended Vietnam, not a peace loving Democrat.

There are cracks. They haven't given up on the Republican party, but they are wavering. The anti-science, anti-fact craziness is harder than ever to overlook, and is bothering them. The fraud and corruption of recent years that lead to the Great Recession also bothers them, but on that front the Democrats are indistinguishable-- all politicians and liars and crooks. It doesn't help that Obama has basically done at best nothing to curb the excesses and crimes of the financial sector. Only Madoff has been imprisoned. We are in peril of another financial meltdown. The PIIGS, particularly Greece, will undoubtedly be blamed for much of it. But there's plenty we can do in the US whatever happens with Europe. The sad fact is like with the Vietnam War in the 60's, neither party seems willing to take steps to do so. We need to bolster honesty and transparency in the markets and politics. Got to police the markets, get tough on white collar crime. Who are you supposed to vote for if you feel Wall Street fraud and campaign finance is our biggest problem? Whoever is not currently in power?

Much like Libya, when before Obama and NATO intervened the Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop. And afterwards, when we were done (in a month, for under a billion dollars, and with none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple) they continued whinging that we never should've intervened in the first place.

Now that's just ridiculous. That would be like them spending all of their time legislating contraception, abortion, and marriage, and then complaining that the president hasn't done enough to help the economy.

Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop.

Doing something about an oppressive regime is not equivalent to an undeclared war flying in the face of a Congress that is demanding the President at least address the War Powers Act before continuing.

under a billion dollars... none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple

Preventing injury to our troops and keeping war cheap is not the purpose of the War Powers Act despite what Obama seemed to think.

Um, no, The annual deficit may be smaller, but the debt is definitely bigger. That said, given the circumstances in 2008-2009, even if Jesus Christ somehow had been resurrected and been elected POTUS, "He" wouldn't have been able to turn the US budget back into a surplus and start paying down the debt.

You wouldn't think that strange if you knew anything about Ann Richard's opponent, Clayton Williams. He was his own worst enemy. Blew a huge, huge lead. Pretty well sealed his loss when he compared bad weather to rape, saying "if it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it".

Sadly I am with you...I voted libertarian (I'm in CA, so not like it matters, my vote is swamped by SF and LA/SD areas).Frankly I know we are supposed to have a multiparty system, but we've been a duopoly so long that the republicrats have consolidated their power. They battle over petty stuff very publicly. But if there is ever something that could actually harm their power base you never hear about it and how they work very closely together to see that it fails.

We need a revolution in this country, not a bloody one, but a ballot box one. I think the Tea Party is a good thing, just because they are harming the existing power base.-nB

Here's a hint if you have to choose between the betrayer, someone who promised hope and change and the person who you know is going to screw, always choose the person who you know is going to screw you.

Why, with the person who you know is going to screw you know what to set up your defences for, you know how far they are going to go, you know their limits and you have an understanding of how they can be controlled. With the betrayer you have nothing, except they already betrayed you and this was only the

the evil factor of how much damage they can do is mostly about the same, give or take. but are they religious-based and do they believe in sky daddies? do they pander to that base who does? if so, then my vote goes to the other guy.

the republicans have allied themselves with the religion believers and I don't quite understand why, but I do see it as an easy filter mechanism.

I think somebody from texas, or several slashdotters from texas need to take copies of all this and send it to the texas state bar: Technically the:State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, for their review, this woman if she is indeed a lawyer needs to be dealt with swiftly. Also the state congressmen and senator need to be contacted if the state bar doesn't do anything because she is giving the great state of texas a bad name.

sorry for posting this earlier, but I figured its relevant, btw I'm not an american, I'm a Canadian, but I just hate it when a good state looks stupid because of one person, especially texas because southern texas women are HOT.

To file a complaint you must:

Contact a CDC Regional Office

If you have questions about the grievance process or the status of a grievance, or if you need to request a grievance form, please call the office located nearest you.

"Isn't it ironic? Atty4kids' suffering began when a crafty Houston Chronicle Help Desk Guy, Jay Lee asserted what appeared to be false claims for copyright violation against her, wiping out this and 13 websites 8 days before the primary, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Why do I believe it was false? A litany of facts suggesting Jay has very naughty. "Fair Use" Doctrine. Jay Lee and his outrageous lynch mob media printing lies to smear Candice have gone so over the top, there's simply more to the story. I've never met anyone so masochistic, begging to be smacked, as Jay. Call in the lynch mob! It goes all the way to Scotland! what's really up? Why would grown men put on an act like this,assassinating the Character of the President & Founder of Attorneys for Special Needs Children? Jay Lee is a hacker and tech expert and knows everything imaginable about computers. He would certainly know how to take down 14 of Atty4kids' websites with a single accusation. He would also know that images can be purchased through licensing, if he did not truly own the image motivating him to slice her jugular. What was wrong with sites? Sheriff Garcia was called a cry baby and couldn't take it. Artsy people like Lee usually possess many talents. He is an Amatuer photographer. He had a right to file te claim if true, but Most people are kind enough to first notify the person going for the jugular. He did not. He whines that he didn't know this would occur, unlikely story. What I think he failed to anticipate was the devastation and anger he'd cause to a mom with three kids who is deeply committed to advancing the Civil Rights of Special Needs Children (Atty4kids) who is a force to be reckoned with. Realizing the damage caused, he withdrew his sworn infringement claim immediately and practically begged her ISP to restore service quickly. Whether her suspicions are right or not, HE SHOULD HAVE HIT THE ROAD After she apologized, offered payment, permitting him to NAME HIS PRICE, he withdrew the accusation and the image was removed. He did not, but began stalking Atty4kids on Twitter and accused her of infringement AGAIN in fron of 1700 followers. Livid, she said "you better be joking" and he disappeared in abject fear. Coupled with the bait and switch game he played on Flickr, theres reason for concen. First, he scripted a drama for others to play that was enough to make you vomit. He wrote his pathetic sob story all over the photo with a frowny face as onlookers gawked ooh, aah, and spoke of the money he should have been paid on Flickr, UNAWARE that he could have NAMED THE PRICE and FAILED. 10 seconds was my limit. I left ad clicked the link a short time afterwards of curiosity, POOF! GONE! A magician like Sheriff Garcia? With the Chronicle Head Sheriff Garcia's crafty weasly Campaign Manager, free lessons? What are the odds that less than 24 hours after calling Garcia a cry baby and 8 days prior to primary, her VERY POLITICAL, HIGH RANKED blog, Chicks and Politics, would be suspended by a hacking pro employed with the Chronicle! If you knew Bernie's influence with the Chronicle, you'd laugh. She traced the Twitter stalker immediately, finding Jay and his Chronicle association she knew before even looking. Media Libels Atty4kids & Violates Her COPYRIGHT (DMCA) Jay milked the horrific tragedy for 4 days at which time Atty had enough and demanded he remove all of his libel, infringement and harassment from the web within 2 hours. Several cease and desist letters were sent, but this one hit a nerve. Maybe it was Atty's advice, "Get a lawyer," for 4 days, every parasite imaginable seeking to cash in (they are collecting funds for Jay's Defense), not yet realizing they'll need one too, is defaming her too. Theyve republished a BS atiry to inflict damage. Keep it up, morons! Damages are looking great! Atty has given 1000 hours in our fight foe justice for disabled kids. She

Insane? Perhaps. But even if she's not, she really needs to learn about this little writing technique called paragraphs. Perhaps, she needs also someone to clue her to that fact that using lots of phrases in caps makes you SOUND TOTALLY BATSHIT.

Well you know Schizophrenia can sometimes have a late onset. I'm not a doctor, but her writing definitely has a certain rambling, imbalanced quality to it. That whole, huge thing was one long paragraph on the theme of "everyone is out to get me". It's possible that she is genuinely mentally ill, and yet she might have been a competent attorney once. All I can say is that, as a layman, I was somewhat concerned for her mental health after reading that blog entry. It doesn't strike me as the writings of a sane person, but I'm not an expert.

That is perfectly true, but there's many conditions that can arise unpredictably or which can be triggered. I'd consider her closer to Borderline Personality Disorder, since Schizophrenia (as I understand it) alters the way a person's internal model of the world works but does so in a consistent manner. R. D. Laing exploited that to produce therapies based on the idea of having schizophrenics make the correct mappings at the conscious level.

However, this attorney isn't acting in a consistent manner. Too random. She's also able to function (to some degree) in law and that's not something you would necessarily expect from a Schizophrenic. What we're wanting to look for is a mental or neurological disorder that's very narrow in focus and domain in comparison to Schizophrenia.

Hey, here in California we restrict the douchbags to SF and Hollywood. In both cases we are hoping for the San Andreas to fix this issue for us. Also, I would like to point out that we in California are the only state to get you to watch our douchbags hours on end in our movies. You even spend money to watch our douchbags.

We do occasionally promote them to be governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and possibly president *(I don't think Regan was a douch, but I'm sure some do).-nB

I should have included this in my original post, but for anyone too lazy to follow the link, 17 USC 107 [cornell.edu] states (in part):

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright....

In short, it appears to be an explicit and clear cut example of fair use.

Showing a picture of a hamburger (as an example), then reviewing the food is not what is meant by "criticism, comment, news reporting"--if you didn't take the picture, that's just plain old infringement. It means commenting on or criticizing the *actual* photograph in question as a work of art--not the subject of the photograph.

So if I run newspaper, I can't just use whatever graphic for any story I want and claim fair use because "news reporting"--I only get to invoke fair use if the news story is about the photograph in question.

She might be able to make a fair use claim somewhere, but I doubt she can make a fair use case for the vast majority of the infringements. I don't see how some guy's campaign for Sheriff qualifies as an entitlement to free use of any stock photography he wants.

She doesn't have a fair use claim, but petapixel has a very clear fair use claim for the thumbnail screen shots of the original photo, and her infringing usage of it. That appears to be the photo she's claiming a DMCA violation on, and she has no valid claim because of 17 USC 107. Also, the fact that she doesn't own the copyright to the image in question means she may have committed perjury when she filed the DMCA takedown notice.

I'm only a layman, and my conclusions are not legal advice. But I have read the copyright law many times, and that's how interpret it. YMMV.

Except that the logo in question is part of an image which she doesn't own, and doesn't have a license to use. Therefore, while she may have a copyright on the logo, she doesn't have a clear copyright to the full image she is claiming she owns in her DMCA takedown notice. She's got an encumbered claim to the item in question, and since you must attest that you're the rightful owner of the material in question, and therefore it's a questionable claim. It's not clear what her status is regarding that particul

Petapixel is reporting on her copyright infringement. As such they have a thumbnail screen shot of her site as proof. That thumbnail includes her logo, just barely readable. This woman needs to go back to law school and look up "fair use" and the difference between copyrights and trademarks. Next thing you know, she will be claiming copyright infringement for publishing her DMCA letter. If she really is practicing law then she ought to be disbarred for her behavior.

I love (in the ironic sense) when websites do that sort of thing. I was trying to do the right-click "open in new tab" to check out one of the links she provided without leaving her site, but got the ridiculous "respect copyright" message. I even tried copy/pasting the link, but the page doesn't allow highlighting of text either. So I had no choice but to leave her site (and I won't return).

She needs to hear the other point-of-view from someone she trusts and respects. Someone she will listen to and actually take it onboard when they tell her she's being pretty stupid and wasting her own time. Probably someone she works for at one of the sites she maintains. And if you locate someone, be nice. Real nice. I shouldn't need to say it, but distingush between Ms Schwager and her actions and also between her actions and these organisations. Point out how her idiocy is making them look bad.

She needs to hear the other point-of-view from someone she trusts and respects. Someone she will listen to and actually take it onboard when they tell her she's being pretty stupid and wasting her own time. Probably someone she works for at one of the sites she maintains. And if you locate someone, be nice. Real nice. I shouldn't need to say it, but distingush between Ms Schwager and her actions and also between her actions and these organisations. Point out how her idiocy is making them look bad.

Wade.

You are sooo wrong, sadly. This woman has gone far beyond being an idiot. Even an idiot at some point would know to just shut up. This is much worse. She is full-blown narcissistic paranoid-delusional loony-bin material. There is no person left on this planet that she will listen to, because EVERYONE who says anything negative to her or about her is automatically assumed to be in cahoots with the EEEVIL Sheriff Garcia. This includes all kinds of random internet people on Twitter, the commenters on the photographer's original article (the initial "lynch mob"), as well as the commenters on the PetaPixel article. According to her all of these random people are part of a conspiracy run by this Sheriff Garcia that she's trying to get rid of. If she ever finds out about Slashdot we'll all be included in the conspiracy too, I'm sure.

Even if you got the Christ-figure in this drama, her immaculately-conceived hero Louis Guthrie, to speak to her about this, it wouldn't make any difference. In fact, the next article on her blog afterward would be something like, "Guthrie Sells Soul to Garcia, Satan Wins!" And it will be yet another extensive, zig-zaggy, rambling diatribe about how the whole world is trying to destroy her (and by extension, how the world is trying to destroy the disabled children she has supposedly dedicated her life to serving).

This woman seriously needs to be put in a padded room and given some intense psychological help before she ends up living on the streets arguing with imaginary people. It may be as simple as a dose of lithium to even out a manic episode. I'd hate to think she's been this crazy her whole life and nobody's noticed, but that's not unheard of either. Witness Michelle Bachmann.

P.S. It's really interesting going through the comments on the PetaPixel article. With her odd writing style it's quite easy to identify the dozen or so comments she made in support of herself WHILE PRETENDING TO BE OTHER PEOPLE. Hint: She's the only one who keeps harping about Jay Lee (the photographer) "taking down her websites" and slipping in references to "Garcia". Oddly she never says a word against her beloved web host GoDaddy, the ones who actually took her sites down.

You are correct, but based on my experience I would bet there are no such people. I expect that anyone who attempts to tell her she is being stupid and wasting her time, no matter how diplomatically phrased, will almost certainly immediately be classed by her in the "enemies" group. I could be wrong, but what little of her writing I have read suggests that she is a paranoid who thinks there is some vast conspiracy out to silence her. Anyone who does not fully support her is a tool of her enemies.

Although her Linkedin profile states that she has worked as an attorney in the past, the Texas bar website does not show her as a current member. She claims to have made a voluntary career change and left the practice of law to become an attorney marketing guru. That's somewhat plausible, except that NO attorney who has been admitted to the bar would allow their admission to lapse voluntarily except in VERY unusual circumstances. Even those who leave the practice of law almost always maintain their bar memberships. I would bet she was disbarred or suspended for an extended time.

NO attorney who has been admitted to the bar would allow their admission to lapse voluntarily except in VERY unusual circumstances.

Not true. My wife is an attorney, and is keeping her ticket alive despite a stint as a stay-at-home mom, because she plans to use it again and the California bar has a 45% pass rate -- no way is there any way she wants to submit to that hellish 3 day long exam again. But there are hassles, she has to keep up with bar dues, she has to earn CLE credits (Continuing Legal Educatio

Following one anonymous coward's idea that she might be registered under her maiden name, another anonymous coward found her registration as Candice Leonard and a record of her marriage to Richard Schwager in 1999. I just though I would bring this to the attention of people who do not read anonymous cowards, so that you know who to complain about to the Texas State Bar:

She has not been disbarred or suspended, though her recent actions seem to warrant it...

Though it's not relevant in this case, you're absolutely right about attorneys not letting their bar membership lapse. My dad maintained his bar membership for more than 30 years after he stopped practicing, even though he hated being a lawyer and never had any intention of going back into practice.

Couldn't this qualify as libel? And isn't she perjuring herself by claiming that this individual is violating her copyrights even though it's a clear cut case of fair use? Not to mention the crazy claims she made about the other individual.

This series of events have been so awkward and strange that I'm seriously starting to wonder if everyone is in it together to troll the internet. How is this crazy lunatic woman a lawyer, really, without even seemingly a basic understanding of the law?

Jay is a hacker and tech expert and knows everything imaginable about computers. He would certainly know how to take down 14 of Atty4kids’ websites with a single accusation. He would also know that images can be purchased through licensing, if he did not truly own the image motivating him to slice her jugular. He undoubtedly knows how to kill a server with a Trojan virus, though I’m not suggesting he did this to a mom of three little boys, one with special needs.

Because lawyers think they have some God given right to be above the law.

This crazy woman thinks that just because she is involved in programs supporting disabled children, she should get a free pass at violating the law? It's entirely HER FAULT that she put these multiple sites together under one in which she infringed on someone else's copyright. If she wants them to go back online, then it's simple. Remove the infringing content (or agree to by a specified date). Or split the sites apart. But instead, she wants to use her law background to do the things that get lawyers hated by the public, and to even further extend her own misery on the internet.

Candice: just get a clue. Here's a free one (and feel free to copy it, too). Put your web sites back up elsewhere under other domain names. Just leave out the copyright infringements when you do.

Jay Lee needs to pick this up again, just to get a conviction against her. That would make it easier to get het disbarred. Lawyers should learn when to sue and when not to and that sueing people can have consequences to themselves as well.

Why or how was that rant worth posting? Slashdot has been an effective avenue for wasting time for its whole existence (in addition to having some worthwhile articles). The trick is to read the headline, maybe part of the summary, and decide if you want to read further.

Yes you are right, the story doesn't make sense. And the summary doesn't help. The story:
Jay Lee, a photographer, took a picture. Discovered many people were using it. Issued DMCA notices
Candice, was using the picture to promote a business. Go Daddy received DMCA and took down all 14 of Candice's sites. She freaked.

That was basically the original story.
PetaPixel reported on the issue, included a screenshot of Candice's use of Jay's photo.
Remember I said Candice flipped? So apparently she issued SIX DMCAs to GoDaddy because she claims PetaPixel's screenshot of her site is copyright infringement (when in reality it is fair use)

because she claims PetaPixel's screenshot of her site is copyright infringement (when in reality it is fair use)

Which if the DMCA was applied the way it was written would put her in deep shit similar to perjury for making a false DMCA claim, but of course it's never actually been applied that way.That law should never have been passed but the US is busy trying to spread the cancer to other places.

This may be the chance; she seems crazy enough to actually lose. PetaPixel should report the perjury and we should all pile in with donations to support them. Getting a precedent set in this direction would really really help.

In the DMCA notice the complaining has to state that they in good faith believe that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

The notice also has to include a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Since a copyrights lawyer could reasonably be expected to know that the usage would fall under a fair use defense and therefore the use is authorized by the law they could therefore not under the penalty of perjury truthfully swear that the information in the notification is accurate.

Candice, was using the picture to promote a business. Go Daddy received DMCA and took down all 14 of Candice's sites. She freaked.

all the sites are probably on one godaddy account, and they (godaddy) simply disabled the account instead of deleting the infringing file or redirecting the dns for the one infringing domain. easier and faster to do that way for them, and more likely to get the infringer to contact godaddy for the whats-what. but some might think that godaddy used a sledgehammer when a baseball bat to the head would've sufficed.. that is, unless they already had previous experience dealing with her and knew she was bat-shit-crazy.. many companies make notes about "special" customers -- we simply use @@@ signs in a 'notes' field (@ for asshole.. the more they have, the worse they are) -- for this lady, i might have to send a request over to the DBA to increase that field length, just for her.

Seriously - for an alleged lawyer, not knowing what the DMCA is, how to use it, and doing so in a manner that simply boils over the ol' cauldron full of dumbass?

Umm, yeah. At this point, forget counter-suing. If I were the guy who inadvertently opened this particular can of crazy, I'd start loudly and openly asking the Texas State Bar to consider distancing themselves from Ms Schwager as quickly as possible, and with unabashed prejudice.

i read the original story the other day, as it was listed in someone's sig here at slashdot - i followed the trail, and after she had taken down Jay's picture, she replaced it with an Anne Geddes picture. that made me chuckle.

She claims to be an attorney, but others have posted that no research so far conducted can find evidence that she has ever been licensed as such or is currently entitled to act as such. If, as seems possible given the evidence so far, she is not an attorney at all but a fraud, then Texas' bar should be considering legal action on those grounds and the State should consider pulling her business license as it is presumably a violation of the terms and conditions of such a license.